The 2008 employment stats are nothing to be impressed with, considering how brutally attorneys were laid off shortly after. What's the point of biglaw if you can only work there for a year? When the next NLJ250 stats come out, the reportage is going to be much more shocking and dismal. The NYU/Columbia grads are going to cannibalize Fordham's class; it's not like employers are having to choose between dismal Columbia students and the best Fordham grads anymore. The competition is fierce now.

The 87% reporting rate you cite is quite respectable, however, the fact that the statistics have been falsified is not. There's no way that the number of biglaw associates in your statistics doubles after you cut 13% from your stats. Second, Fordham gives no disclaimer for the "The median salary was $160k" claim it likes to throw around. It does not say, "The median salary among graduates who were able to report this data was $160k"

As for why I discuss Fordham, it's only because it's the most expensive law school and the most notorious book cooker. It would weigh down my argument to bring in fifty more law schools doing the same thing but to a lesser extant. If Fordham is wrong in principle, then like offenders will be wrong, too. My main interest in all this is to stop the tuition inflation war among law schools. They cram us into a room of 100 people for three years and charge $150k for the service.

Fordham is a fine school, but they're playing the same game every other school is - inflate the prospects.

Neverknowsbest wrote:I'm pretty sure that math isn't right. Maybe some math should be on the LSAT, maybe that would cut back on the number of lawyers the law schools pump out. Anyway, 43.5% of the class would have to make 160 for the median stat to be true, which is still a lot of the class and deserving of some skepticism. Its not like its impossible in NYC though.

Good morning, TLS. I just got home from a lovely night of drinking and karaoke with good friends. I can see that I was missed.

As others have pointed out, 99.15% of the Class of 2008 reported employment information, and 87% reported salary data. Fordham placed 43.7% of this same class into NLJ 250 firms. The school could not compel all graduates to divulge salary information, and it is indeed probable that many among the 13% who didn't feel like sharing were not making biglaw money. However, as salary surveys go, 87% reporting is quite respectable. Fordham had to make its calculation based on the available data, and the school noted the degree to which said data was incomplete.

This actually represents an unusual degree of candor. Many schools draw salary data from a much smaller percentage of each graduating class, and the skewing of medians at these schools is a huge problem.

I don't believe Fordham has anything to hide. It is indisputably the best non T14 for NYC placement (perhaps tied with Vandy). No rational person will argue that the school places as well as NYU or Columbia, but 43.7% is quite remarkable for a T30 school. It is *gasp* possible for a school outside the T14 to provide good options and employment outcomes to its students.

I'm not certain why OP has this particular beef with Fordham. There are indeed schools that cook the books and send extremely misleading messages about salary and employment to students, and this issue needs to be addressed. Fordham, however, is admirably transparent. (The school does everything short of publishing actual lists of employers, which I would love to see them do. I know last year's class went off to many fascinating places.)

OS: Fordham is an excellent school, but if you take these stats as fact, then you're seriously deluding yourself.

This isn't even the 6th grade math of medians and means. This is ratios. It's 3rd grade math. I followed the links provided to Fordham career pages. Fordham lists some percentage of its classed employed in private practice. (In reference to sealocust's ill-informed rant, in 2006 it was 68.7%.) Then, they list the breakdown in employment (firm size) of that group, and they determine a median salary for that group, which is a subset of the total 99% or whatever employed from the class.

Now, of course, given that many of these posters come from the same population as some prospective students, there will be those who go in thinking that they have a 50-50 shot of making $160K+ upon graduation. And that really sucks for them. But they're stupid. We shouldn't care about them.

Last edited by sbalive on Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

1. The 2008 employment stats are nothing to be impressed with, considering how brutally attorneys were laid off shortly after. What's the point of biglaw if you can only work there for a year? When the next NLJ250 stats come out, the reportage is going to be much more shocking and dismal. The NYU/Columbia grads are going to cannibalize Fordham's class; it's not like employers are having to choose between dismal Columbia students and the best Fordham grads anymore. The competition is fierce now.

2. The 87% reporting rate you cite is quite respectable, however, the fact that the statistics have been falsified is not. There's no way that the number of biglaw associates in your statistics doubles after you cut 13% from your stats. Second, Fordham gives no disclaimer for the "The median salary was $160k" claim it likes to throw around. It does not say, "The median salary among graduates who were able to report this data was $160k"3. As for why I discuss Fordham, it's only because it's the most expensive law school and the most notorious book cooker. It would weigh down my argument to bring in fifty more law schools doing the same thing but to a lesser extant. If Fordham is wrong in principle, then like offenders will be wrong, too. My main interest in all this is to stop the tuition inflation war among law schools. They cram us into a room of 100 people for three years and charge $150k for the service.

4. Fordham is a fine school, but they're playing the same game every other school is - inflate the prospects.

1. Were Fordham graduates uniquely vulnerable to layoffs? This seems to be a criticism that could have been levelled at every law school in the 2008 employment cycle. Everything else in your point 1 is speculation.

2. Shouldn't intelligent people assume that the data they report only provides information on the people that responded? It seems that it would be a logical impossibility for them to do otherwise.

3. Actually, the consensus is that either Brooklyn Law School or New York Law School are the most expensive especially considering the average ROI.

Cranium wrote:Yes, the median is the middle number and the mean is the average.

Extremes can have a greater impact on the median than mean which is why I bet they are reporting the median

No, I think you don't see it !!!

Other way around. The median completely nullifies the effect of outliers. The median is purely positional - the mean integrates every available data point.

Whats far more egregious in my opinion is that law schools get away with reporting only private law salaries (which are on average higher paying than PI, Gov or Business) and then deflect the remaining 30-60% of their graduates as 'self-selecting' for non-private firm jobs. That seriously skews every school's employment data upward.

Kohinoor wrote:3. Actually, the consensus is that either Brooklyn Law School or New York Law School are the most expensive especially considering the average ROI.

TITCR

A school that charges as much as (if not more) than Fordham, still promising a median starting salary of 160k while acknowledging that 25% of their graduates respond to their employment survey is far more egregious of a book cooker than Fordham will ever deign to be.

Lots of people making bad assumptions about all of the NJ250 paying $160,000. That isn't remotely accurate, especially since Fordham is making the claim for the Class of 2007 and not for a mix of students including more established attorneys.

Cranium wrote:Yes, the median is the middle number and the mean is the average.

Extremes can have a greater impact on the median than mean which is why I bet they are reporting the median

No, I think you don't see it !!!

Other way around. The median completely nullifies the effect of outliers. The median is purely positional - the mean integrates every available data point.

Whats far more egregious in my opinion is that law schools get away with reporting only private law salaries (which are on average higher paying than PI, Gov or Business) and then deflect the remaining 30-60% of their graduates as 'self-selecting' for non-private firm jobs. That seriously skews every school's employment data upward.

PI and government jobs pretty much are self selecting, or at least they were, before the current economic shitshow. The vast majority of law school grads want and expect to go to firms, and do so even if they can't get biglaw. Fordham in particular has this reputation, despite excellent PI resources; the numbers going into government and PI jobs are small. If I elect to join their ranks as soon as I graduate, I will certainly be doing so of my own volition, and against the advice of nearly everyone I know. The biglaw siren song is strong, and it certainly is a "badge of honor" to get so selective a position.

My point is that in an economy even marginally less fucked than this one, people don't take government or PI jobs unless they want them. These jobs aren't somehow magically easier to get than non market paying firm jobs, and they tend to pay even less than insurance defense type work.

I agree with you that Business as a category is problematic. Whenever I see a school with a high percentage of grads working in Business, it's a red flag. They could be in corporate legal departments, or they could be at Starbucks. We just don't know.

I absolutely would like to see all law schools held to a higher degree of accountability. However, I am satisfied that Fordham is as good as it gets for a school outside the T14 and UCLA/Vandy/UT tier. Short of hunting down every last graduate and forcing them to divulge salary information at gunpoint, I don't see how the school can get more accurate information.

Why is it so shocking to people that the #3 school in NYC is able to place students well? Are we all so wed to the T14 or bust mythology that it is impossible to accept any facts that don't fit that particular paradigm? A simple Martindale search should be enough to put this kind of thing to rest. Fordham does not place as well as a T14, obviously, but it's one of the best regional schools in the nation. I don't think anyone on here would even bother to dispute that.

Also, what is up with the collective mathematical difficulties experienced by members of this forum? I was a fashion merchandising major and I understand the difference between median and mean.

1. The 2008 employment stats are nothing to be impressed with, considering how brutally attorneys were laid off shortly after. What's the point of biglaw if you can only work there for a year? When the next NLJ250 stats come out, the reportage is going to be much more shocking and dismal. The NYU/Columbia grads are going to cannibalize Fordham's class; it's not like employers are having to choose between dismal Columbia students and the best Fordham grads anymore. The competition is fierce now.

2. The 87% reporting rate you cite is quite respectable, however, the fact that the statistics have been falsified is not. There's no way that the number of biglaw associates in your statistics doubles after you cut 13% from your stats. Second, Fordham gives no disclaimer for the "The median salary was $160k" claim it likes to throw around. It does not say, "The median salary among graduates who were able to report this data was $160k"3. As for why I discuss Fordham, it's only because it's the most expensive law school and the most notorious book cooker. It would weigh down my argument to bring in fifty more law schools doing the same thing but to a lesser extant. If Fordham is wrong in principle, then like offenders will be wrong, too. My main interest in all this is to stop the tuition inflation war among law schools. They cram us into a room of 100 people for three years and charge $150k for the service.

4. Fordham is a fine school, but they're playing the same game every other school is - inflate the prospects.

1. Were Fordham graduates uniquely vulnerable to layoffs? This seems to be a criticism that could have been levelled at every law school in the 2008 employment cycle. Everything else in your point 1 is speculation.

2. Shouldn't intelligent people assume that the data they report only provides information on the people that responded? It seems that it would be a logical impossibility for them to do otherwise.

3. Actually, the consensus is that either Brooklyn Law School or New York Law School are the most expensive especially considering the average ROI.

4. Then why bother mentioning it?

Kohinoor, thank you for your eloquent and well reasoned defense. I don't have much to add to this, since you've sliced Snooker's arguments neatly to pieces. The fact that he calls Fordham the most egregious "cooker of books" is so ludicrous that it doesn't even merit a response. Has he not even bothered to view the percentages reporting salary at other schools? Has he never performed a basic Martindale search to find out where Fordham grads are actually working? The sad thing is that his ridiculous misstatements completely discredit an argument that might actually be useful: schools should publish full employment lists. Such a list would vindicate Fordham and put an end to this idiotic thread.

Newsflash: Fordham is not perfect, but it absolutely among the most transparent schools. People know how well it places. Anyone who is disinclined to believe the school itself can actually do the research. I just find it ridiculous that with so many schools actually distorting information and providing dismal employment outcomes to students, OP would decide to fixate on Fordham.

awesomepossum wrote:man..... creating a thread like this automatically generates work for OS to do.

Oh, AP, it's true. I had such a wonderful time last night, and I want to see the DC kids for brunch before they leave. I'll have to abandon this discourse for a few hours. I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.

Last edited by OperaSoprano on Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

vyper wrote:Seton Hall and Rutgers have high clerkship rates because of the astounding number of state clerkships in NJ. The state has 480 clerk positions between the Superior Court, Appellate Division, and Supreme Court. Those positions go primarily to graduates of the three NJ schools.

When Yale lists their clerkship percentage, almost all of those graduates are at the federal level.

When Seton Hall or Rutgers lists their clerkship percentage, almost all of those graduates are at the state level.

So? It's still a clerkship. It isn't as prestigious, but it is a clerkship after all. Do you suggest Seton Hall and Rutgers not report these numbers, despite them being exactly what they are supposed to report - "clerckships"?

My post was in response to this post:

In line with OP's question -- should Rutgers be sued as well for claiming in the letter they sent me today that they are second only to Yale in getting their students federal and state clerkships?

I mean srsly? Are they? I found that hard to believe, but maybe I'm misguided?

I was trying to show that Rutgers wasn't fudging clerkship numbers... there's just a ton of NJ state clerkships going primarily to the NJ schools... which is where their high clerkship % comes from.

Seton Hall and Rutgers (both) aren't fudging their clerkship placement, they just have a practical monopoly on the massive amounts of NJ state clerkships.

"I would like to send a sincere apology to friends, family, colleagues and members of the Fordham community who have been offended by this poll and would like to confirm that I have officially withdrawn from the contest.

What started as a silly dare has garnered more attention than I ever thought it would. There are no nude photos of myself, online or elsewhere, nor did I ever intend for there to be. I had no expectations of winning in a pool of 25+ contestants, nor did I plan to actually go through with the shoot if I had won. It was purely the thrill of participating in such a contest and trying to get out the last bit of "wild child" in me while I'm still a student, before facing the reality of "becoming a grown-up."

This just happened to be the wake up call I needed to make me realize that I should already be acting like an adult and that, even though I never posed for nude photographs, this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

It was a stupid thing to do and I take full responsibility for it. I can only hope that those close to me whom I have offended will forgive me for my serious lapse in judgment."

OperaSoprano wrote: I trust that others will shoot down any unsubstantiated assertions while I am gone.

160k median salary type assertions?

Doyle, you have seen the numbers. The school works with the best data available to calculate the median, and honestly explains the nature of said data (ie: 87% reporting.) Unless the school were to borrow some Death Eaters and put all new graduates under the Imperius curse, forcing them to reveal their starting salaries, there would be no way to get a "better" median.

Cranium wrote:Yes, the median is the middle number and the mean is the average.

Extremes can have a greater impact on the median than mean which is why I bet they are reporting the median

No, I think you don't see it !!!

Other way around. The median completely nullifies the effect of outliers. The median is purely positional - the mean integrates every available data point.

Whats far more egregious in my opinion is that law schools get away with reporting only private law salaries (which are on average higher paying than PI, Gov or Business) and then deflect the remaining 30-60% of their graduates as 'self-selecting' for non-private firm jobs. That seriously skews every school's employment data upward.

PI and government jobs pretty much are self selecting, or at least they were, before the current economic shitshow. The vast majority of law school grads want and expect to go to firms, and do so even if they can't get biglaw. Fordham in particular has this reputation, despite excellent PI resources; the numbers going into government and PI jobs are small. If I elect to join their ranks as soon as I graduate, I will certainly be doing so of my own volition, and against the advice of nearly everyone I know. The biglaw siren song is strong, and it certainly is a "badge of honor" to get so selective a position.

My point is that in an economy even marginally less fucked than this one, people don't take government or PI jobs unless they want them. These jobs aren't somehow magically easier to get than non market paying firm jobs, and they tend to pay even less than insurance defense type work.

I agree with you that Business as a category is problematic. Whenever I see a school with a high percentage of grads working in Business, it's a red flag. They could be in corporate legal departments, or they could be at Starbucks. We just don't know.

I absolutely would like to see all law schools held to a higher degree of accountability. However, I am satisfied that Fordham is as good as it gets for a school outside the T14 and UCLA/Vandy/UT tier. Short of hunting down every last graduate and forcing them to divulge salary information at gunpoint, I don't see how the school can get more accurate information.

Why is it so shocking to people that the #3 school in NYC is able to place students well? Are we all so wed to the T14 or bust mythology that it is impossible to accept any facts that don't fit that particular paradigm? A simple Martindale search should be enough to put this kind of thing to rest. Fordham does not place as well as a T14, obviously, but it's one of the best regional schools in the nation. I don't think anyone on here would even bother to dispute that.

Also, what is up with the collective mathematical difficulties experienced by members of this forum? I was a fashion merchandising major and I understand the difference between median and mean.

Off to brunch. I'll be around later if anyone needs me.

And you base these assertions off your accumulated zero hours of law school experience combined with your accumulated zero hours of law practice?

My personal experience paired with all the statistics I've read since I began my own personal odyssey tells me the 'self-selecting' spiel is just a tool every law school using in order to excuse away a deficient somewhere. Lots of PI work? We have dedicated students. Lots of students stay in state? They just fall in love with the place. Its just a ready made excuse that's difficult if not impossible to substantiate. Which suits schools just fine.

But the validity of 'self-selecting' is something of a red herring anyway. The tendency of schools schools to heavily publicize the salaries of their graduates within the most profitable sector gives me a misleading picture of law school employment.

This is nothing personal against Fordham... I'm slightly confused as to why you felt the need to defend Fordham specifically in response to my purposely broad statement. If anything I'm aiming more at schools in the Tier 3 and Tier 4, where this tendency appears facially even more egregious.

Last edited by danquayle on Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is it safe to assume that almost every NLJ250 firms pays according to the Big Law scale? If not, Fordham's V100_2L_SA_Placement_Rate of 15% makes one wonder how many people are actually raking in $160k. Moreover, the NLJ survey was for 2005 graduates - people who entered the market at the height of the Ponzi Scheme.

p.s: This isn't to confirm Snooker's thesis, but to figure out if we're working off some faulty assumtions (NLJ250=$160k; 2005 graduates placed at the same rate as 2008 graduates, etc...)

"I would like to send a sincere apology to friends, family, colleagues and members of the Fordham community who have been offended by this poll and would like to confirm that I have officially withdrawn from the contest.

What started as a silly dare has garnered more attention than I ever thought it would. There are no nude photos of myself, online or elsewhere, nor did I ever intend for there to be. I had no expectations of winning in a pool of 25+ contestants, nor did I plan to actually go through with the shoot if I had won. It was purely the thrill of participating in such a contest and trying to get out the last bit of "wild child" in me while I'm still a student, before facing the reality of "becoming a grown-up."

This just happened to be the wake up call I needed to make me realize that I should already be acting like an adult and that, even though I never posed for nude photographs, this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

It was a stupid thing to do and I take full responsibility for it. I can only hope that those close to me whom I have offended will forgive me for my serious lapse in judgment."

I don't know her, and shockingly, I don't have a problem with her doing this, if it's what she wants to do. The notoriety may actually help her career, if curious employers elect to call her in for an interview. Would I personally pose nude in a publication? Probably not. Is she screwed for life? Doubt it.